Karnataka Court December 1998 Judgments
Narayanamma Vs. K.P. Jagganath (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ1233
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K. Prabhakar as well as Mr. T. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. H.G. Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.2. This appeal had been filed, delayed by 2145 days, along with the application for condonation of delay. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 5.10.1989. Considering this period which has passed away since the date of occurrence, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, I thought it better not only to consider the matter relating to I.A.I., i.e., application for condonation of delay, but to hear the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of appeal as well and to dispose of the appeal, if I condone the delay.3. As regards the appeal which is barred by 2145 days, it would be just and proper to mention here that the Tribunal passed the award dismissing the claim petition on 30.11.1991. According to the appellant-applicant, as advised by her counsel...
Tag this Judgment!P. Raju Vs. the Secretary and Disciplinary Authority, Karnataka Legisl ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR892; 1999(2)KarLJ60
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Point which falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the principles of natural justice have to be read into Rule 11-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules') as a result thereof whenever the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Authority on any article of charges, then, before it records its findings has to give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it and defend his case.2. The point arises on the following facts.-Appellant was working as a driver in the Karnataka Legislature Secretariat. He was in charge of Car No. KAG 444. The car driven by him met with an accident with an autorickshaw on 4-4-1986 at about 12.00 noon near Legislators' Home. Disciplinary Authority initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant alleging misconduct on account of rash and negligent driving in a drunken condition after taking liquor. A cha...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Hemalatha Ramesh Vs. H.N. Muddu Krishna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALT(Cri)512; 1999CriLJ1117; ILR1999KAR835; 1999(2)KarLJ99
ORDER1. These petitions have been filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to set aside the order dated 13-8-1996 passed by the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. Nos. 20925 to 20933 of 1996 ordering registration of the case against the petitioner/accused person for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short).2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant in all the cases.3. Briefly stated the facts of the cases arc that the petitioner issued cheque in favour of the respondent which came to be dishonoured when presented before the Bank and the petitioner has not chosen to pay theamount. The respondent filed private complaint before the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City. The learned Magistrate, presumably after taking the cognizance of the offence, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and direc...
Tag this Judgment!Al-mahmood Education Society (Registered), Bhadravathi Vs. State of Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ236
ORDER1. The petitioner-institutions are desirous of establishing Medical Colleges in the State of Karnataka. For that purpose, they had filed applications before the State Government for grant of essentiality certificate as required under the 'Establishment of New Medical Colleges, Opening of Higher Courses of Study and Increase of Admission Capacity in Medical Colleges Regulations, 1993' (in short, the Regulation). Since the applications filed by the petitioner institutions have not been disposed of by the State Government so far, therefore, the present petitions have been filed for directing the respondents to consider their claim regarding the grant of essentiality certificate expeditiously.2. The Regulations have been framed by the Medical Council of India, with the previous approval of the Central Government in terms of Section 10A, read with Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (in short, the Act). In the case of Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Sw...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. H.P. Sundaresh and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1998
Reported in: [1999]236ITR773(KAR); [1999]236ITR773(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. An order of the appropriate authority dated November 25, 1994, has been assailed. By the said order in fact no decision was given either for pre-emptive purchase or not to purchase in view of the fact that the transferee was directed to furnish the copy of the order dated May 16, 1979, granting exemption for the excess vacant land. The transferee informed that clearance has been given by the urban land ceiling department but the document in support thereof was not submitted. In a case where the land is already acquired under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the question of pre-emptive purchase does not arise in view of the law laid down by the apex court in the case of S. Vasudev v. State of Karnataka (SLP No. 10675-677 of 1991).2. This writ petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the appropriate authority should have either passed the order of the pre-emptive purchase or should have given the clearance in view of the var...
Tag this Judgment!B.P. Malini Vs. Ramachandra Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1998
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas444(Kar)
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The petitioner had presented this petition for winding up of respondent No. 1-company. Briefly stated, it is their contention that they were supplying certain H.DP.E. containers of four sizes to the first respondent-company. It is their case that as per supply made, vide Invoice No. 206 and D. C. Nos. 136 and 137, dated October 28, 1995, an amount of Rs. 85,712.80 was payable to them. The petitioner's contend that the containers were lifted after proper verification by the respondent-company's staff and transported in their own vehicle on October 28, 1995. Thereafter, there is a long description of what has happened and the petitioner's grievance is that the payment against the consignment was not made despite repeated reminders. According to them, on February 24, 1996, the company sent them a letter, inter alia, stating that there wassome defect in the goods and that they have refuted this position by their letter dated March 2, 1996. According to the petitioner, t...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Boregowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ1255
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.5.1998 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya District, Mandya, in Case No. CWC/CRMF No. 95 of 1994-95.2. In the matter of accident that had taken place on 21.8.1994 at the time and place mentioned in the claim petition, it has been found by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Mandya District, Mandya, that the claimant workman, i.e., respondent No. 2 sustained grievous injuries. The Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 79,900 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya District, Mandya, the employer and insurance company have come up in appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.4. Mr. O. Mahesh, the lear...
Tag this Judgment!Veerabhadranna Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: ILR2001KAR2350; 1999(2)KarLJ517
ORDER1. The petitioner was working as Divisional Controller in Bijapur Division of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. He invited applications for filling-up the posts of Drivers and after completing the formalities a selection list was prepared and after obtaining the approval of the Managing Director, appointment orders were issued. In that connection the Security Officer submitted a report as per Annexure-B, dated 22-12-1989 with regard to the corrupt activities of the petitioner. Based on that report, a charge-sheet as per Annexure-A was issued to the petitioner on 15-1-1990 alleging that he used influence for awarding passing marks to 168 candidates in the Trade Test and another 18 candidates and that he issued the appointment order to a person demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000-00 while the appointment was made on compassionate grounds and thereby the said omissions and commissions constituted misconduct under Regulation 3(1) of Karnataka State Road Transport Co...
Tag this Judgment!M.D. Devegowda Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4087; 2000(2)KarLJ101
ORDERConstitutional validity of Section 44(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulations Act, 1966, has been assailed in this petition. Also under challenge is the validity of a resolution passed by the respondent-A.P.M.C. whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of the Chairman of the said Committee, on the basis of a 'No-confidence' motion moved against him. An order issued by the third respondent-Director of Agricultural Marketing Committee dated 12th of November, 1998, under Section 44(2) of the Act, has also been called in question. The controversy arises in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner was at the relevant point of time the elected Chairman of the respondent-A.P.M.C. A 'No-confidence' motion was moved against him by as many as 15 out of a total of 17 members constituting the Committee. A meeting to discuss the motion was called by the Secretary of the Committee on the 10th of November, 1998. At the Meeting out of 17 members 5 were pre...
Tag this Judgment!T.T. Paul and Another Vs. M/S. Little Flower Kuries and Enterprises Li ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2378; 1999(6)KarLJ465
ORDER1. The petitioners are the defendants. The petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in S.C. No. 1925 of 1994directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,750/- have preferred this revision petition.2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,190/- arising out of a chit transaction. It was stated in the plaint that the defendant became a member and subscriber of the Chit bearing Ticket No. B-24. The chit was auctioned by the 1st petitioner on 18-8-1989 and the 1st petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 250/- per month from 18-10-1989. The 1st petitioner had paid 93 instalments and then defaulted in paying the instalments. The respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 4,500/- towards principal and Rs. 1,690/- towards interest on the basis of the default. The plaintiff also stated that the petitioner defaulted in paying the instalments payable on 18-12-1990 and the suit was filed on 2-2-1994.3. If the period of 18-12-1990 is taken in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »